In Matter of De Novio v. County of Schenectady, 293 A.D.2d 101 [3rd Dept.2002], the petitioner was found to be disabled as a result of an accident sustained in the performance of his duties (although he had 10 years of service in the system)--rather than as a result of being disabled with 10 years of service. The De Novio court specifically noted "That petitioner, in light of his years of service, also would have been eligible for section 605 disability retirement without proving an accident or an injury sustained in the performance of his duties does not alter our conclusion. Both the language of General Municipal Law 207-c and the available legislative history support the conclusion that the Legislature intended a municipality's obligation to pay full-salary benefits to be temporary, ending when the recipient became eligible for a comparable disability benefit (see, General Municipal Law 207-c [2], [5]; Governor's Mem approving L 1961, ch 920, 1961 McKinney's Session Laws of NY, at 2141 [reflects the Governor's insistence, prior to his approving the legislation, on protections designed to limit the duration of a municipality's obligation to pay full-salary benefits])." (Matter of DiNovio v. County of Schenectady, supra at 104-105 [emphasis supplied].) The De Novio court concluded that "The fact that the accidental disability benefits available to the members of petitioner's retirement system are authorized by the same statute that provides ordinary disability benefits is an insufficient basis upon which to conclude that such benefits do not constitute an 'accidental disability pension' within the meaning of General Municipal Law 207-c (2)." (Id. at 105)